Follow us on social

google cta
Mohammad_bin_salman_in_washington_-_2018_26083237057

Saudi bodyguards have been training in the U.S. since Obama. Why?

Revelations that Khashoggi's killers were trained by a private security contractor in the States have raised some uncomfortable questions.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Four of the 15 Saudis involved in the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi received training in the United States, according to the New York Times. The story highlights the depth of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, the critique of which has simmered following Khashoggi’s grisly murder and dismemberment in October 2018. 

Tier 1 Group, the security company that conducted the training of the four Saudi men, has stressed that the instruction they received had no relation to the acts of brutal violence they carried out against Khashoggi. Instead, the training was defensive in nature, intended to “counter an attack” ostensibly against a high profile individual. This reiterates the link to Mohamed bin Salman, as members of MBS’ personal protection squad carried out the killing, although the Saudis continue to deny the Crown Prince’s responsibility in ordering the murder.

Yet the revelation also underscores the fact that the problems underpinning the U.S.-Saudi relationship predate the Trump White House, as well as Mohammed bin Salman’s tenure as crown prince. The four Saudis were trained in 2017, but two also received training between 2014 and 2015, while Obama was president, and King Abdullah was still on the Saudi throne. The question emerges as to why Saudi operatives receive training in the United States at all?

The military partnership between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia reflects the countries’ 75-year-long relationship. Historically, Washington had to overcome the mismatch between Saudi policy and values that the United States claimed to uphold — democracy, individual liberty, gender equality, freedom of expression — because of American dependence on Saudi oil. Yet the United States surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest exporter of oil in 2019; instead the majority of Saudi fossil fuels now travel eastwards to Asian markets. Although the global economy remains dependent on fossil fuels, U.S. willingness to ignore Saudi abuses and crimes can no longer be explained by America’s addiction to Saudi oil.

Instead, it is the American military industrial complex that remains dependent on Saudi Arabia as a wealthy and valued customer. Although the Trump administration increased the sale of U.S. weapons by 23 percent, many of them to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration sold vast quantities of weapons to the Saudis as well. The Biden administration, after initially committing to end the sale of offensive weapons that could be used to attack Yemen, has allowed certain sales to proceed.

At the time of Khashoggi’s murder, Congress denounced the Trump administration’s close partnership with the Saudis, even passing an historic War Powers Resolution, which Trump vetoed. Yet since Biden’s ascension to power, perhaps because Biden himself initially signaled that he would be tough on the Saudis, critique of the relationship has been more muted. Members needn't have worried: the Biden administration also has deep ties to the defense industry.

As long as the United States merely pays lip service to the preservation of human rights, or only points out abuses by U.S. adversaries while ignoring the crimes of U.S. partners, Biden's efforts to restore America's moral authority will fail. The Biden administration should suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia and drastically reduce its military partnership with the House of Saud. Until that occurs, Americans should prepare for more embarrassing revelations about the depth of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.


Then-Defense Secretary James N. Mattis meets with Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defense, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, at the Pentagon in Washington D.C., Mar. 22, 2018. (DoD photo by Navy Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Kathryn E. Holm)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Despite ban, pernicious military 'earmarks' are back in the billions
Top image credit: Roman Samborski via shutterstock.com
Popular YouTuber discovers how corrupt the Pentagon budget is

Despite ban, pernicious military 'earmarks' are back in the billions

Military Industrial Complex

A new report finds that lawmakers added nearly $34 billion to the Pentagon’s procurement and research accounts for FY2026, through 1,090 individual program increases, many of which the Defense Department did not even request funds for.

Although individual program increases are not earmarks, they serve a similar function. Formal earmarks themselves were temporarily banned in 2011 to curb lawmaker-driven runaway spending, then reintroduced in 2021 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as “Community Project Funding,” and “Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS)” in the House and Senate respectively — and subject to transparency requirements, where lawmakers must associate themselves with the earmarks they propose.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.